Here's a thread from earlier this year on when some people knew about, or used, BHE: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=491758
why did jose hit the 9 this way?
- Thread starter evergruven
- Start date
Here's a thread from earlier this year on when some people knew about, or used, BHE: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=491758
Yes, what a player believes is happening, because of how it feels, is not always what is physically happening. For me, after watching another player hit a couple of shots with a flick of his wrist, I practiced it and it felt like something special was happening. But observing the chalk marks on the cb with each shot convinced me otherwise. All that was happening was a variation of speed and directional force at the point of tip contact, which can be duplicated more consistently using a straight stroke.
The point that I was trying to make, though was that the swoop method was taught to me by top tier players who said that it was an alternative to the parallel method. There was never any mention of another method. Whether or not there was a select group who used BHE, to me, isn't important because it had nothing to do with why the swoop method was created.
Buddy Hall used a variant that he called "tuck and roll". Same thing, different way of applying it. T&R uses an intentional but very slight wrist 'tucking' inwards or 'rolling' outwards motion on follow through to change where the tip strikes the cb).
You need to calibrate the motion of it, but it is the same principal of bridging at the cues natural pivot point, and angling the cue so that it goes through the ball at the appropriate angle to compensate for the cb squirt.
He put that out in the late 80s or early 90s.
I believe what makes it confusing is that the tip's direction of movement is not the same, nor is the speed of the tip at impact the same. The difference is shown here, where on the left the cue tip comes straight to the point of contact with a stroke speed of X. The shot on the right shows a sweeping/swooping tip with an exact same stroke speed, but some of the directional force at impact is lost due to what appears to be a glancing/sideways blow.
This image is what swoopers imagine or feel is happening, or at least how I felt or imagined it happening whenever I'd shoot a similar style shot. But looking at chalk marks on the cb afterwards, I'm inclined to believe that nothing special is happening, and I can produce the same desired cb action that I was getting with this little wrist flick by using bhe or parallel english with a slightly more elevated stroke. But feeling the shot is important, so if a player feels like certain little flicks work better, and results confirm it, why do it any differently? To each their own, based on their experience.
Your diagram is right on the money. And you're right. It shouldn't feel like anything special in execution because the only thing that's supposed to be special about it is in how you aim. I keep repeating myself and I'll say it once more here. I think that either the tip stays on the cb longer due to the pool cue quickly changing direction, I think, while the cb is in motion ---- or it's a double hit.
Last edited:
The use of backhand english was illustrated in Kentfield's book on billiards in 1839. He also shows the swerve from the side spin on the way to the ball.
A French text from about 1890 describes the process in detail -- aiming without side and then pivoting to get side spin and then shooting through.
Eufemia wrote his book about 1975. Here is how he described the "Swivel System":
The chapter includes a lot more description and diagrams.
I don't think it has to be done in order to draw conclusions - in fact I think it's better in this case to draw conclusions from something more reliable than an impression gained from experience, which is notoriously misleading in pool (for instance, Sigel's longstanding denial that throw exists).
I'll (with all due respect) throw your question back at you: do you think you've gained enough understanding of the physics involved to say what you've said about this? In particular, have you given enough thought to the following?
I think your notion that the tip changes direction to a meaningful degree while in contact with the CB is contradicted by this fact (and I don't think it would accomplish anything if true that can't be done with a straight stroke).
I've just returned from a trip, and will get around to my test in the next day or two - I invite you to do the same. Maybe we'll both learn something!
pj
chgo
If we change the cue's direction with one straight stroke vs. another we also change the CB's direction. How does swooping change this fundamental physical fact?
pj
chgo
The direction probably does change slightly. but not nearly as much as the squirt factor if you were to hit the ball with the parallel method of applying side spin.
I finally got around to doing this...I've just returned from a trip, and will get around to my test in the next day or two - I invite you to do the same. Maybe we'll both learn something!
- used a 10 ball as my "cue ball", with the circled number facing me, centered and upright, placed on the foot spot
- hit pairs of shots, first with a swoop stroke and then with a straight stroke - aiming to hit (1) the same spot on the "cue ball" and (2) the same spot on the far (crosstable) rail at (3) the same speed
- watched to be sure I hit the same spot on the far rail each time; checked chalk marks after every shot to be sure I hit the same spot on the "cue ball", watched to be sure the ball traveled the same distance (back to the near rail); discarded any pair of shots that didn't meet all these tests
- hit 20+ pairs of successful shots
Results: For every successful pair of shots, exactly the same amount of spin (measured by where the kick hit the near rail after rebounding from the far one) - even I was a little impressed at how precise it was.
No surprises to me, but I promise I was strict with myself and fair to the test. For what that's worth to you...
pj
chgo
P.S. For the swoop strokes I lined up straight crosstable for each shot, but could not get a swoop stroke to actually hit the rail strait across - always an inch or two off in the direction of the swoop. It was easy enough to hit the same spot with a straight stroke, so I could still compare those shots. This is also what I expected (with my very low squirt cue).
Last edited:
A straight line path and a curved path are different tip directions.
Whether the direction is different or not depends on when the tip hits the ball.
As I said earlier:
"One thing the swoop believers have failed to do is precisely describe the path of the cue tip. It would be nice to see a scale drawing of what they imagine the tip's path to be and compare that to the reality of the video of what actually happens on their best swooping stroke."
I think that if you actually constructed such a drawing, you would convince yourself that you are completely wrong about this, which is something I'm unable to do.
I suppose it's worthwhile to keep pointing this out (over and over again) for others, but BilliardsAbout will apparently never get the difference between "path" and "instantaneous direction".
Stubbornly wrong about such fundamental stuff isn't a good look for an "instructor".
pj
chgo
So, you disagree with me, Bob, and... physics.
Punch a globe through Point X and it topples, slap a globe through the same point and it spins. Path provides "instantaneous direction" if by "instantaneous direction" you mean "path through impact".
I'm not sure which particular statement you were referring to, but I disagree with most of the statements you have made in this thread. Just in case anyone was confused.
I'm still waiting for a scale drawing of the path of the tip for a typical swoop stroke by your definition.
You know, I haven't checked back for awhile because I thought you were done with this ridiculous BS. Now I see you are back.
What exactly is your problem? I know you don't have any students but don't you have some other way to occupy your time instead of putting up this stuff that not a single other person on here agrees with.
I'm trying to see things from your point of view but am receiving little consideration in return.
If I understand you, the stroke paths through impact and the resultant english would be equivalent if the swoop's forward stroke moves the tip along two straight lines--straight ahead for much of the forward stroke, then a straight diagonal turn for english--an inefficient and difficult stroke to attempt. A swoop follows a curved path, however. And you're right as in your prior post, a video would help. I'm not near a table now so I made a video as below.
"I disagree" is not a refutation to proofs offered regarding pro use of swoop. There's now an entire line of Indonesia pool equipment named Carabao Billiards--named after the Asian pro swoopers! https://www.facebook.com/carabaobilliards/
Video: http://bondfanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/20190822_092718.mp4
Your anger is self-immolative, your animadversion is inappropriate.
My "problem" as you put it is posting a dozen proofs of my claims and you responding with insults, not facts.
Why are you unwilling to take a private free lesson with me as suggested? You could come here and post horrible things about how bad a teacher I am when we're done, right? And why won't you make the peace with me? I seek to improve your pool game. You seek to tell me how you already know everything about pool and are done learning, and improving. So why come to AZ at all?
Some agree with me here, others disagree. Keep disagreeing if you like, but I recommend posting facts and not mud slinging, to help yourself think more clearly.
PS. For someone who watches over my teaching, you've never responded to my factual comments on our two other threads together! You may have missed something...
...I'm quite ready to discuss pool with you, calmly. How about it? A fresh start for us.
I think you mean "the direction of instantaneous acceleration" but the two strokes have different directions to them, as demonstrated above.
I recommend you take the quotes off "instructor" when referring to me. If you think all instructors have to hold a designation like PBIA et al, that would eliminate playing pros I know who charge for lessons from being instructors.
I've done paid or free lessons for many years. Are you an instructor, PJ, do you give lessons? If not, perhaps your insulting my teaching is some kind of bizarre jealous streak. Please be more mature going forward.
What you've written about the "swooping" is quite visible when a slow motion camera is placed on most of those Asian players (who by and large are beating the tar out of most of the pool room loafers here in the USA)
You seem to be a pretty decent guy but you're mainly pissing into the wind here and letting it blow back in your face. You'll be forever in finding open minds around USA pool rooms.
Remember.............."It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
Have a nice day.
